Judge's ruling ends Seattle's gun ban

[Trlsmn]

I am proud to announce here, as one of the plaintiffs in the case, that the Seattle (WA) Parks Gun Ban has been STRUCK DOWN!



Report from <broken link removed> :

Thank you for your part in overturning this!

 

[mudnducs]

Congratulations are in order for the people of Seattle!!! Way to go!!!!

 

[Atroxus]

Only down side is all the tax money those retards spent taking this to court. I really wish there was a way to make those bastards pay for it out of their own pockets.

 

[Stomper]

Only down side is all the tax money those retards spent taking this to court. I really wish there was a way to make those bastards pay for it out of their own pockets.

What about all the lawyers, file clerks, admin assistants, parking lot attendants, news people... all gainfully employed by all this acticvity?! Just think of it as "stimulating the economy"... at least that's what the goobermint in Oregon does!!

 

[tionico]

Definition of "Epic Fail"


well, the beginning of the saga, anyway...... it won't be an epic fail in MY book until he's failed to complete his term, AND failed to get reelected. You are right, however, in that he's so far BEEN an epic failure... hasn't kept more than one campaign promise I can remember... and that was his promise to suspend the Mexico City Accord, which, when active, prevented Federal Funds (OUR tax dollars) from buying abortions in foreign countries. He signed that, in a secret session, the first week in office. No press, no fanfare.... it leaked out later. Oh, I almost forgot... he promised ":change", and that's about all many of us have left, what with his spending it like we had it.


As to Seattle's huge legal bill, and I do hope they end up paying the legal costs for the prevailing party, Ex-Mayor Chump Change Nickels will have got his own back to punish Seattle for the temerity to fail to reelect him. This was his "so long, suckers" parting shot. I think HE should bear the brunt of it. He's gone on in politics, making trouble somewhere else. Last I heard, he'd been appointed head of some committee or organisation of mayors, some nationsl good ol crone's club. Wouldn't surprise me the Kenyan could find a special place for such a great community "organiser". Seems, though, Seattle haven't done much better with this new guy. His barmy response to this court decision is amazing.

 

[Atroxus]

What about all the lawyers, file clerks, admin assistants, parking lot attendants, news people... all gainfully employed by all this acticvity?! Just think of it as "stimulating the economy"... at least that's what the goobermint in Oregon does!!

They would still be just as employed if he payed for this out of his own pocket as they are when they pay for it out of our pockets. It just disgusts me that the taxpayers have to pay for that idiot's attempt to circumvent state law. Wasn't he told in advance by the AG that what he was proposing was illegal?(not that ignorance of the law would be an excuse if that had not been the case) IMHO he should be held legally, and monetarily accountable for that.

 

[tionico]

They would still be just as employed if he payed for this out of his own pocket as they are when they pay for it out of our pockets. It just disgusts me that the taxpayers have to pay for that idiot's attempt to circumvent state law. Wasn't he told in advance by the AG that what he was proposing was illegal?(not that ignorance of the law would be an excuse if that had not been the case) IMHO he should be held legally, and monetarily accountable for that.

Right you are.... but try and get enough Seattleites (those "damaged", and thus with standing) to press suit against the guy. The present mayor would likely come to his defense. Looks like the same guy, different shirt, from what I can see. Seattle deserve the huge bill for electing Nickels in the first (and second) places, and for not flooding their city council meetings in protest of the proposed illegal ban.

Someone who LIVES in Seattle should do a FOI act request (or set of them) to learn the total cost to Seattle for this travesty. Time for the Parks Department to design, procure, install, the signs, then to remove them and dispose of them. Time eaten up by the Mayor's office and staff dealing with this, ALL legal costs, including the court's, time for LE to "enforce", including when our man showed up armed....... it wouldn't surprise me if the total tab exceeded a million. Oh, and don't forget to add in the time the AG's office spent in researching, responding, preparing the letter notifying of state law.

 

[Gunner3456]

Most states give "absolute immunity" to office holders when acting in a "legislative capacity." I suspect that might include Washington.

"Qualified immunity" requires "good faith" on the part of the person, but that's only when acting personally on "discretionary" items which can't be identified as legislative, prosecutorial or judicial functions.

In this case the perp would plead absolute immunity personally due to the legislative nature of the act, and the suit would then be against the people of Seattle!!!!!!

You can sue the city for the acts of an office holder when the holder has personal immunity.

 

[Mookie]

This is all and good. Now the question becomes, how are you going to stop some idiot from ruining it for everyone. The wet side is about half a bad news day from turning into San Francisco.

Now is the time to let everyone know that it can still be changed if some drunken buffoon starts showing his piece at a free concert in the parks. You may be responsible, but how about your friends, and their friends?

 

[Joe Link]

Excellent news! They ought to give each of the plaintiffs one of the old signs as a souvenior

 

[tionico]

so, this begs the question (immunity for public office holders) : since when does a mayor legislate? I always thought a mayor is in the executive realm, not legislative. Remember, the deparation of powers from grade school civics classes?

 

[Will]

A lot of it depends on what Seattle is going to do. Mayor McGinn seems to be signaling from his press release that he won't appeal, but the City Attorney is saying that they're considering an appeal.

In the end, it falls onto Mayor McGinn to make that decision.

Gray, You didn't answer my question. Are you involved with over turning the similar ban in Snohomish county. The county where you live?

Being a plainif on the Seattle issue was easy, I am one as well and I became a plainif via a response to an email.

Looking forward to your activity in the county where you live as well.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Gray, You didn't answer my question. Are you involved with over turning the similar ban in Snohomish county. The county where you live?

It's what happens when you stay up late and skim over threads. Oops. You have my complete attention (at least until I go to bed, which is in about 15 minutes, then I'll check up again).

Being a plainif on the Seattle issue was easy, I am one as well and I became a plainif via a response to an email.

<broken link removed> . I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch your name.

Looking forward to your activity in the county where you live as well.

We (as Snohomish County gunowners) should be pursuing the County Council to repeal the parks gun ban off of the books. I wasn't at the Snohomish County meeting because I had to work and I could not get the time off.

We are also not sure at this point if the City of Seattle is going to appeal. They have the ability to within 30 days of the final judgment. McGinn has given some indication that he's going to go to the Legislature rather than appeal it upward. We'll see.

In the meantime, we should be active in Snohomish County Parks in terms of gathering there (though it's not exactly the best outside weather at the moment). As long as the parks ban is not in any way enforced by the County Park rangers and the Sheriffs (my understanding it's only been enforced once and this person was corrected after wards), getting standing to sue the parks ban off of the books and force the county code revisor to actually remove the text would be extraordinarily difficult. The city of Seattle threatened to enforce the ban against me and others as the plaintiffs, and had the full weight of the city behind it.

I would have no problem with open carrying myself in a Snohomish County park (haven't done this before), as the law is preempted and repealed. The County Council being stubborn about it doesn't change that fact. An illegal arrest for the parks ordinance is practically getting the county to buy your house for you without a mortgage. A state court has declared preemption means preemption, and the county, after being warned many hundreds of times by gun rights activists after the unenforcability of their gun ban. They have NO qualified immunity defense anymore.

 

[Stomper]

I gotta get up there and patronize those county parks, I'd like my mortgage to get paid off!!

 

[tionico]

I gotta get up there and patronize those county parks, I'd like my mortgage to get paid off!!

Not sure if its just the signs still there, but a number of King County parks have signs prohibiting guns as well. Making a fuss over those might be interesting.
Request the county parks board for a ruling, are the signs merely left over, or is there an ordinance remaining on the books to ban arms from county parks in King..... pressure to remove the signs (which DO appear to be rather antique....) would sort this out.

 

[Will]

It's what happens when you stay up late and skim over threads. Oops. You have my complete attention (at least until I go to bed, which is in about 15 minutes, then I'll check up again).



<broken link removed> . I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch your name.



We (as Snohomish County gunowners) should be pursuing the County Council to repeal the parks gun ban off of the books. I wasn't at the Snohomish County meeting because I had to work and I could not get the time off.

We are also not sure at this point if the City of Seattle is going to appeal. They have the ability to within 30 days of the final judgment. McGinn has given some indication that he's going to go to the Legislature rather than appeal it upward. We'll see.

In the meantime, we should be active in Snohomish County Parks in terms of gathering there (though it's not exactly the best outside weather at the moment). As long as the parks ban is not in any way enforced by the County Park rangers and the Sheriffs (my understanding it's only been enforced once and this person was corrected after wards), getting standing to sue the parks ban off of the books and force the county code revisor to actually remove the text would be extraordinarily difficult. The city of Seattle threatened to enforce the ban against me and others as the plaintiffs, and had the full weight of the city behind it.

I would have no problem with open carrying myself in a Snohomish County park (haven't done this before), as the law is preempted and repealed. The County Council being stubborn about it doesn't change that fact. An illegal arrest for the parks ordinance is practically getting the county to buy your house for you without a mortgage. A state court has declared preemption means preemption, and the county, after being warned many hundreds of times by gun rights activists after the unenforcability of their gun ban. They have NO qualified immunity defense anymore.

No you didn't get my name...
"An illegal arrest for the parks ordinance is practically getting the county to buy your house for you without a mortgage" That statement is WAY over the top. Did Seattle pay off your home? No they didn't, no moneys were awarded. If I believed you for a second I would be marching about a Snohomish County park with my firearms in view and my home would be paid for.

Seattle won't appeal this decission, State court has ruled so they would need Federal court to over turn the ruling or spend millions to try rewrite the state consitution. Not going to happen.

Still wondering why you claim to be a key point in the Seattle parks issue but not involved with the Snohomish parks issue, the county where you live and expect spend more time in the parks.

If I missed something let me know, No disrespect ment. And if you know how I can get the county to pay off my house please share.

 

[Gray Peterson]

No you didn't get my name...

The reason I posted the complaint was to ask you who you were. You made the following statement:

Being a plaintiff on the Seattle issue was easy, I am one as well and I became a plaintiff via a response to an email.

If you were added as a plaintiff to the Chan v. City of Seattle case, I would have known about it because it's all been rather well discussed. All plaintiffs had to be deposed, and no "Will" or "William" is on is on the list. Not suggesting you were bamboozled or anything, but it was a response to an email from who?. If you feel it necessary you can answer this question by sending it via PM.

"An illegal arrest for the parks ordinance is practically getting the county to buy your house for you without a mortgage" That statement is WAY over the top. Did Seattle pay off your home? No they didn't, no moneys were awarded. If I believed you for a second I would be marching about a Snohomish County park with my firearms in view and my home would be paid for.

I will admit that it was a LITTLE over the top. Considering the home prices in this area, it wouldn't pay for a house, but it would pay for a down payment on a house here. I guess I should have added a and on to accentuate the humor of the statement.

You miss one very important fact: I wasn't arrested by Seattle. We filed in state court under the preemption statute and argued that myself and the other plaintiffs had standing to sue Seattle. Seattle's response to our motion for summary judgment was to essentially try to destroy our standing to challenge the rule.

There is also confusion as to what kind of case the Chan case was versus what kinds of cases that result in punitive damages. The Chan case was a state civil case which challenged the City's enforcement of their parks gun ban rule. A suit in state court using the Washington State preemption statute does not have the capacity to incur punitive damages against the city for forcing SAF and the individual plaintiffs to fight in court against them. Notice that there's no "attorneys fees" in the statute, either.

At least at the Superior Court level, there is NO "paying for the plaintiff's attorneys fees" as far as what I researched even if we had won, if my reading of the court cases on the subject are correct. We should be so fortunate that the nation's most effective 2A related legal foundation is in our backyard here in the Seattle area and willing to stamp out the clever "it's a rule, not a law or ordinance" crap that Seattle was trying to pull, regardless of whether or not it gets it's attorneys fees paid for.

There is a big difference between a state civil case challenging a rule under state preemption, and a federal case filed under 42USC1983 challenging an unlawful detention or abuse of civil liberties under the color of law. They both have their own standing requirements, and it so happens state standing requirement in terms of law is better for us than federal. In neither case would an arrest have been involved. There are better ways to get standing than getting arrested.

Snohomish County has been told time and time again that it's parks ban ordinance is void. They refused to remove it from their books on the legislative level, but the people that would enforce it (the Sheriffs and the County Park Rangers) won't enforce it because they know about state preemption. You could carry in a county park every day, and as long as you were not arrested or detained by the Park Rangers or SnoCo Sheriffs, you'd have no federal standing to sue, and likely no standing to sue under RCW 9.41.290 in state court, either.

The county must take some form of enforcement action to be held in terms of standing. In order to take it out in state court when they've done no enforcement action, the statute would have to be changed to look like the preemption statutes of Ohio and Virginia, allowing anyone to sue the localities for violations of preemption (this is called "legislatively created standing") and to give the court the power to strike it from the written books.

If you're arrested or detained for violation of the ordinance, despite multiple warnings and the state court decision in Seattle, you can then file in federal court under 42USC1983 (I am not sure if there is a state court tort for this, I'm more familiar with federal cases for arrest and detention) and sue them for economic and punitive damages. They will try to claim qualified immunity. There was a case on this, St. John v. McColley, which you can read about <broken link removed>. The city paid out $21K to settle rather than drag out the case and possibly get a six figure judgment against them.

Seattle won't appeal this decision, State court has ruled so they would need Federal court to over turn the ruling or spend millions to try rewrite the state constitution. Not going to happen.

Seattle has 22 days to file an appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division 1. The proverbial "viking fat lady" has not sung yet for this case, until that period of time has elapsed.

Seattle can challenge the Superior Court's ruling via a "throwing spaghetti on the wall/hail mary pass" legal briefing methods in an appeal to the WCOA/D1. I won't go into detail as to what they could challenge on because I'm not going to help write Seattle's brief to the appeals court if they do file.

However the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Sieyes just incorporated the 2nd amendment onto the State of Washington via the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. That's going to be a long road to hoe, as it where, because it appears that a very strong majority of the Washington State Supreme Court not only just applied the Second Amendment to the state of Washington and it's political subdivisions, they may have just turbocharged Article 1, Section 24 into something much stronger than it has been in decades. Seattle should pay really close attention to a state Supreme Court that says "we will keep our powder dry on this issue for another day" in the official court opinion and if they've smart, they will not appeal. Do not count out stupid, however.

Still wondering why you claim to be a key point in the Seattle parks issue but not involved with the Snohomish parks issue, the county where you live and expect spend more time in the parks.

Read the complaint, more specifically page 10, and you'll see the direct reason why I primarily go to Seattle parks.

That being said, I have never said I was NOT involved in the Snohomish County park issue. I have rallied in the Snohomish County Parks thread at OpenCarry.org's forum, I have contacted my councilman and other members of the council to try to have them repeal it.

I'll continue to be involved in that. It's just that I wasn't at the hearing because I was at work. Does that make my involvement up here more clear?